There isn't a need for novel new kludges if Albany would just fund this joint MTA/NYSDOT loco procurement already and stop using that as a vector for taking more hostages over control of Penn. At 75-90 identical units for Amtrak, MNRR, and LIRR there's enough economy of scale this time to blunt the edge of the overkill of having a fully-capable DM for a mile's worth of terminal track. We're making too much about how little time the Empire units spend in E-mode per trip. The same Siemens-or-whatever make on commuter rail will spend much more of its time touching third rail simply by their far greater commuter schedule frequencies into GCT/NYP. The MTA is the party that provides nearly 70% of the ordering scale, not Amtrak/NYSDOT. If there were a need to change the E-mode technology involved, it would be commuter rail driving the change. As is, the request for battery storage to solve the gapping issue has its greatest potential utility on LIRR for allowing much greater share of E-mode running...so commuter rail scale is already steering the specs requests.

AMTK822401 wrote:Also, there is no dual mode Siemens Charger, as far as I know one hasn't even been designed yet. There may never be one albeit it is very very likely one will at least be designed.

Siemens did indeed respond with a DM Charger when the Request for Info was issued by NY State a few years ago. Way back before the first Charger was ever built. Docs are available online and were posted in the other AMTK subforum thread about the New York Dual Modes. It was them, Bombardier with the ALP45-DP, and MPI with a variant of the HSP-46 who responded to the RFI. All 3 entrants had remaining technical issues to square with the weight before they could meet New York's specs, but as this was the RFI and not the formal Request for Proposals the goal was only establishing initial interest and ballpark feasibility, not locking down a shipping product.

It is near-guaranteed likely that Siemens is going to bid a Charger derivative on the RFP now that the diesel Charger is a full shipping product in revenue service. Bombardier's still likely to be in the mix, but MPI is probably not because of the royal mess they made of the HSP-46 and pound of flesh that design disaster pulled from progress on the company's other Tier 4 lineups. With two players from the RFI left and Amtrak having a heavy hand in the Siemens v. BBD selection process, it's overwhelmingly going to be Siemens' bid to lose.

AgentSkelly wrote:Only deal changer I could see with a BBD getting the order would that they would be built in Plattsburgh, so it supports the state economy verses Siemens getting it and building it in California.

Possible point in favor of BBD as well: the MTA & (maybe) CDOT combo order of MLV-spec bi-level coaches to replace the entire LIRR and MNRR east-of-Hudson push-pull fleets. Likely timed in/around when the loco order gets RFP'd, because the option orders for coaches above-and-beyond replacement level are dependent in part on how many locos the MTA is going to shoot for. Obviously BBD is the overwhelming market leader for North American commuter coaches, the MLV has proven itself to be an "It Just Works™" product through two generations, and the MTA is less likely to be as reckless as SEPTA at letting an inexperienced low bidder like CRRC or Rotem prevail on an order that size. So odds are Plattsburgh's going to be very busy pumping out MLV's for the agency, and timing of that procurement at or near the loco procurement will put Bombardier in competitive position for the locos despite Amtrak's feelings on the matter.

BUT...the ALP-45DP is a genset diesel, not a single-prime mover product. Different animal for maintenance, as well as higher fuel consumption making it a somewhat big philosophical departure for agencies that only need a little bit of E-mode. And having to shrink 2 engines + the electric half to fit into the weight requirements gives Bombardier a somewhat more difficult design road ahead for meeting the specs, since they already pulled a pretty radical design departure with the gensets to get a shipping product in the first place. From the RFI Siemens seemed to have more tricks up its sleeve at squaring the weight differential. Point of concern in their RFI response was whether they could deliver a 125 MPH capable product with E-mode at the weight limit, but 110 MPH was doable if NYSDOT gave a little leeway for reduced power output in the next-round RFP specs. Much like the P32 has a lower-rated 12-cylinder engine to the P40/42's 16-cylinder engine...but Siemens wasn't looking at quite as dramatic a reduction from the stock diesel Charger for the DM version. Fact that their DM would have a rote regular diesel prime mover makes any specs leeway on their weight shortfall a lot more palatable than leeway for lower-rated gensets. Plus it's now been a few years since the RFI and the Charger has gone from design schematic to full shipping product--within its schematic's intended weight target--so they can give much more precise answers today than they could in the RFI what tricks square the weight difference.

Still think it's overwhelmingly Siemens' loco order to lose. But also overwhelmingly Bombardier's coach order to lose.

The general consensus is third rail e mode speeds are limited to 110 MPH. That seems to be no factor as speeds on both MNRR and LIRR do not come close to that speed and would not for Amtrak.

As far as to bidders for any DM. The proposals should require figures for that company's promised deliveries of each order compared to actual deliveries. Also once each type delivered any problems causing equipment being taken out of service and how long. Bidder agrees to allow agency contact to verify figures. Change orders can also be added to these figures.

You're being generous with the 110 mph consensus, because per the following the world record for third rail train speeds in 108 mph. Posted by chrisjmiller on Monday, June 11, 2012 4:23 PM on another forum;"The world speed record for third rail traction is held by a British 442 multiple unit at 108mph. In normal operation, these unit were limited to 100mph. Much of the rail south of London is electrified with the third rail system (750V DC) and the majority of modern units are rated at 100mph. This is not achieved all that often on most routes, however, as this is commuter rail....."

I can't verify that world record speed anywhere, so I'll admit I don't know.But I haven't read any third rail train running faster than 100 mph on a regular basis.Therefore, stating 110 mph speeds is being very generous.

AgentSkelly wrote:Only deal changer I could see with a BBD getting the order would that they would be built in Plattsburgh, so it supports the state economy verses Siemens getting it and building it in California.

The ALP45s would be "final assembly" only in Plattsburgh. Plattsburgh has never assembled a locomotive, even a "kit" shell. The TraXX and ALP series have final assembly in Kassel, with car bodies from Wroclaw.

Since my friend continues to chain smoke nonstop, she is probably an Alco.

64(17) came into Rennselaer with a P42, left with 702 and 104 (P32/P42) combo. I know the "control" P42s are being used on the Grand Central trains, but I can't recall seeing P42s run much south of Albany otherwise. Is this normal?

I saw a picture last night on railpictures.net mentioning one of the dual modes had a turbo puke, resulting in the straight diesel tow

"That sapling that once grew just south of Wassaic may be long gone, and the Harlem Line’s appearance may have changed over the years, but for decades to come, I can count on it continuing to provide me with funny recollections"

A few nights ago (think it was Mon the 14th) a shortage of dual modes resulted on P42 #109 taking #64 all the way to NY. At Empire an ACS-64 tied on to tow the train through the tunnel and into Penn Station. #109 was the power for combined 63/69 the following morning.Andy

Given Bombardier are surely in bad odour in MTA circles over the subway order, I think some MLVs would be as much as they could demand solely for political reward.

If R.E.M. plans proceed in Montreal, there's a good chance of some 45DPs and maybe MLVs going surplus which MTA could acquire and operate into Penn for CTDOT, assuming NJT didn't need/grab them solely for their own account, but I would see Siemens as being in pole position for a new third rail loco for GCT operations.